John Campbell

[redsturgeon]

I thought it best to start a new topic on this. John Campbell seems to elicit a wide range of responses to his youtube content, from the "best thing since sliced bread and the only true source of data on covid" to "a dangerous spreader of misinformation". The truth clearly lies between these poles.

I have stated my view previously, to recap: I think he started off as a very useful collator of the latest articles on covid research and over time was sucked into various controversial areas specifically wrt to the role of the use of off license medicines to treat the virus. He has rolled back on some of these views in the light of later data but IMHO was irresponsible in his reporting before the data was reviewed. He seems to have an agenda that we cannot and should not trust big pharma or governments to give us the truth and takes that too far IMHO.

I still watch his videos though and his latest demonstrates why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuqDu9ZCP_c

In this he discusses an open letter from the BMJ regarding one of their articles reporting issues with clinical trials of the Pfizer vaccine. This article was "fact checked" by a third party, and wrongly flagged up as "flawed"

Here is the letter:

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635/rr-80

The video poses the very valid question "who checks the fact checkers" and highlights the incredibly powerful position Meta puts itself in when it can censor the output of highly respected peer reviewed scientific journals based on unchecked, non validated views of single third parties.

An interesting topic.

John

[servodude]

Seems like a really good bloke who might be a bit of a victim of his own success.

In that, I think he has good intentions and does normally put stuff across clearly and well; but the gain in his feedback loop might be a bit too high for him to handle.

He's been dragged away from what he was good at, and experienced in, by the popularity he has gained on YouTube during the pandemic.

He's now dealing in information that's novel and plausible but with an air of certainty that it hasn't earned.. but trades superficially off and gains credence from his previous output.

It would be a very onerous job to be across all the info he tries to present as thoroughly as you should be for the amount of videos he puts out.

I admire his commitment to correcting his output when he realises he was wrong - but think that he would be better served just having a break and taking a step back
- the videos that made him a really great resource were backed up by decades of experience
- the recent ones seem supported by a you tube following

I'd still get him a pint and sincerely shake his hand though

-sd

[9873210]

In my opinion almost all of the information around covid is uncertain to a substantial degree. This does not mean it is all equally uncertain but absent a quantitative approach, adjectives are very subjective. To paraphrase Sir Humphrey "You can argue against any conclusion that there is uncertainty, or for any conclusion that there is no significant uncertainty".

Science is not a tool for dealing with uncertainty. Science uses a brute force approach; gather enough data and you can hammer uncertainty flat, so the argument is between 99% and 99.9999% and it doesn't matter for practical purposes. This does not help much if you don't have the time or ability to collect enough data. You can view this in a Bayesian framework: if you have enough data it doesn't matter what the priors were.

Politics, or leadership, approach to uncertainty is to project confidence, i.e. to ignore uncertainty. This may be a good way to get things done. It can be a good way to get the wrong things done. Apparently, most people find it satisfactory.

If you use a quantitative approach you can communicate with about 3 people, half of whom are Bayesians and the other half frequentists.

This leaves Dr. Campbell and other people engaging in the conversation where they are. And it's unlikely that deciding not to engage is a winning strategy, at least if you care for the public good.

[redsturgeon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6VbI8gOnUM

The latest video from John Campbell is fascinating. Pfizer admitting that they did not test the vaccine to see if it stopped transmission before rollout.

John

[Julian]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6VbI8gOnUM

The latest video from John Campbell is fascinating. Pfizer admitting that they did not test the vaccine to see if it stopped transmission before rollout.

John

This video worries me and is perhaps an example of where basically well-meaning people can get carried away and stir up a hornets nest. I suspect that on this particular topic John Campbell might not be alone and a lot of media outlets might make a similar knee jerk response. I suppose to do otherwise risks one being called a big pharma shill or similar but my, admittedly also knee jerk response, is to think that there is nothing really to see here regarding the science and that JC’s frequent use of the word “scandal” in this video is not at all appropriate at least when purely looking at the science. One could certainly have significant concerns about the subsequent messaging and other political issues such as mandates in various countries, and some might even go as far as to determine some of that stuff as scandalous, but I don’t see the issue with the science.

The jumping off point for JC’s strong reaction is Pfizer’s admission that it never tested its vaccine for its ability to prevent transmission. So what? Is that really such a surprise to anyone? Surely any pharmacologist could have read the phase 3 clinical trial protocol way back in 2020 and seen that any metrics related to prevention of transmission were not defined as endpoints for the trial. Incidence of symptomatic infection? Yes. Incidence of severe disease? Yes. Fatalities? Yes. But anything to do with blocking transmission? No. Also, from what I’ve picked up while trying to learn a bit more about virology I wonder whether many virologists would not have ever expected to see any end points related to transmission because such end points would be considered impossible to measure.

I have followed the virologist Vincent Racaniello and his “This Week in Virology” channel for much of the later part of the pandemic and on a number of occasions (pretty much whenever discussions about the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 came up) he has made the claim that it is pretty much impossible to construct meaningful experiments to accurately determine the transmission characteristics of a virus. In fact he claims that in the history of virology he can only cite a single what he considers robust experiment conducted by some well-known virologist using two cages of ferrets in carefully controlled conditions to attempt to quantify the transmission characteristics of some primarily-airborne virus (I forget which one)(*). As a layperson trying to at least skim below the surface of some subject area there is always the danger that some of the experts one encounters turn out to have unconventional views and are considered outliers by their peers so maybe this is not a widely held view amongst his peers and the majority of the virology community do think it perfectly possible to set up test conditions controlled enough to supply the statisticians in Pfizer’s clinical trials team with data robust enough for them to be able to make statistically valid determinations about whether one or more transmission-attenuation end points had been met but it seems to me to be a discussion that should at least be touched upon before expressing outrage about the “scandal” of not testing for the ability to block transmission during the trials.

And therein I think lies my problem with JC. I don’t think he is a Machiavellian character now trying to push an anti-vax agenda, or at least I hope not. I suspect it might be more the case that his original modus operandi of picking papers or government reports on latest statistics and simply going through the data therein was sufficient and effective in the early days when much of the data being discussed were reasonably self-contained such as spread/growth of cases in various countries plus hospitalisation, deaths etc. Even stand alone clinical trial results themselves are relatively straightforward given that the study designs should be eliminating any confounding factors. Now however with so many nuances, contradictory information, potential confounding factors in some observational studies, and issues like this where some much deeper domain expertise in study design really should be taken into account, I fear that JC’s MO of concentrating on a single thing at a time and not considering wider context and not calling in other expertise where necessary makes some of his content quite dangerous now in its potential to only give a partial picture and hence to mislead.

There is admittedly the associated point to consider. If it is true that the extent of the vaccines’ ability to attenuate transmission was genuinely unquantifiable and the only robust data available was for prevention of various severities of infection then was it highly misleading and disingenuous, some might even say dishonest, for various governments to push the “it’s to protect others” line? That’s a whole different discussion though.

- Julian

(*) I do always try to quote my sources but unfortunately the TWIV content is copious, hundreds of videos many almost 2 hours long, so I have no hope of finding an exact time index in and of the many videos that I have watched where I can catch Vincent Racaniello talking about the difficulties of quantifying transmissibility and the caged ferrets experiment.

[redsturgeon]

There is admittedly the associated point to consider. If it is true that the extent of the vaccines’ ability to attenuate transmission was genuinely unquantifiable and the only robust data available was for prevention of various severities of infection then was it highly misleading and disingenuous, some might even say dishonest, for various governments to push the “it’s to protect others” line? That’s a whole different discussion though.

- Julian

That is the bit that concerns me.

John

[scotia]

There is admittedly the associated point to consider. If it is true that the extent of the vaccines’ ability to attenuate transmission was genuinely unquantifiable and the only robust data available was for prevention of various severities of infection then was it highly misleading and disingenuous, some might even say dishonest, for various governments to push the “it’s to protect others” line? That’s a whole different discussion though.

- Julian

That is the bit that concerns me.

John

First - on the vaccine's ability to attenuate transmission
If we believe that vaccination reduces the number of identifiable infections, then surely it reduces the number of sources of infection - and reduces the probability of others getting infected. The only contrary argument could be that the vaccine removes the symptoms but not the virus - which remains in throats and nose - and somehow evades the PCR and LFT tests.

Second - on protecting others
Yes - there is a fine balance, which probably is most evident in children of the early school age range, where severe effects of the disease are virtually non existent. However these children are regrettably super spreaders, and many grandparents who aid in the child care are vulnerable, as are immunocompromised parents.

[XFool]

Tricks Dr John Campbell uses to spread DISINFORMATION on YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqQC0tTECvQ

In this video, Dr Susan Oliver and Cindy the dog go Back to the Science and look at the tricks used by Dr John Campbell to spread medical misinformation on YouTube with impunity. Includes a cameo appearance by Dr Aseem Malhotra who, together with Dr Campbell uses the antivaxxer “carrot” trick to spread disinformation.

[redsturgeon]

Here's another useful video that charts the rise of Campbell and suggests how "audience capture"* has trapped him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhZf0of-gwE

*Audience capture is a self-reinforcing feedback loop that involves telling one's audience what they want to hear and getting rewarded for it.

John

[XFool]

...I'd speculate that something like that was going on initially with Mike Yeadon. He had a whole lot of devoted Twitter followers and cheerleaders egging him on.
"Go Dr Mike!"

[9873210]

I have come to the conclusion that video is the problem. It is entirely the wrong media for serious presentations. John Campbell is guilty of this, but so are posts like this viewtopic.php?f=98&t=36705.

Sure there are cases where a 15 second animation can enhance a written paper. But anybody who prepared a talking head video, essentially taking half an hour to read a paper that can be skimmed in a minute (if it's bad) or pondered over for days (if it's great) should be utterly dismissed. As should anybody promoting videos as anything other than entertainment.

[AWOL]

I gave up on John Campbell early on as I found him tho be selective in his reading of papers and also had an air that insinuated conclusions that were indefensible, although welcomed by paranoid minds. The insinuations couldn't be robustly engaged with as they were not explicitly stated. I recently saw Neil Oliver using the same technique on GB News, I won't watch that channel again.

He has gone beyond insinuation now.

His basic failings are probably partially through inexperience and partly through bias. I think part if the problem is that a scientist in a relevant field would be better equipped to interpret research rather than a former A&E Nurse but the less informed the viewer the less able to judge the presenter's inadequacies.

One good thing about him crawling further into the conspiracy theory space is that rational minds should have no difficulty seeing his work for what it is.

[XFool]

Might be of interest: viewtopic.php?p=546264#p546264

[XFool]

More on the topic of "Audience Capture". (Warning: It's long.)

What makes a COVID-19 “contrarian” doctor—or any quack?

Respectful Insolence

In 2008, I tried to answer the question: How do doctors become contrarians, quacks, and antivaxxers? A Twitter encounter suggested to me not just answers but that an update to that post is massively overdue.

This made me think of our own, homegrown UK version of Dr. Ionnidis!

"That could well describe why physicians like Dr. Ioannidis and Prasad so easily lapsed into COVID-19 contrarianism. Before the pandemic hit, their entire “brands” had been based on criticism of the evidence base for various medical interventions and the quality of clinical trials used to justify those interventions. Naturally, the appearance of a novel virus, where the science evolved rapidly and was initially often confusing or even misleading, provided many big fat, juicy targets for their previous skills."

[harris1939]

I will probably be "fact checked" by the powers that be on TLF but John Campbell is mostly correct in his assertions regarding the (not particularly good) covid vaccines. He did believe the mainstream at first but later began asking questions when the evidence did not stack up. Questions he should have been asking months before he did. He is of course seen as a nut job by the majority on here who, looking at this thread, mostly just believe anything they hear (or read) on the mainstream media about those vaccines. Anyone who dares to question the mainstream narrative is a devil worshipping flat earth crackpot. I am one of those I am afraid.

What happened to Jimarilo, by the way? Cancelled?

[XFool]

I will probably be "fact checked" by the powers that be on TLF but John Campbell is mostly correct in his assertions regarding the (not particularly good) covid vaccines. He did believe the mainstream at first but later began asking questions when the evidence did not stack up. Questions he should have been asking months before he did. He is of course seen as a nut job by the majority on here who, looking at this thread, mostly just believe anything they hear (or read) on the mainstream media about those vaccines. Anyone who dares to question the mainstream narrative is a devil worshipping flat earth crackpot. I am one of those I am afraid.

You know best, harris1939.

What happened to Jimarilo, by the way? Cancelled?

Banned, AFAIK.